And sorry, to answer the original question. I do not consider the game a fail. I like it's simplicity and the ability to complicate things as only my players can... or your players... or the other GM's players... oh, you know what I mean.

But in all fairness, not every RPG is for every player. If you don't like it, FFG would probably thank for trying it and you can move on to what makes you happy.

There are plenty of good RPG's out there that I don't personally like, but I don't call them failures. There are lots of good video games out there that I don't like but seem to make massive amounts of money.

Not bashing anyone or any game, just saying "do what makes you happy". But for those of us who DO like the game, I guess it's a request to let us please enjoy our blissful ignorance.

I would not say fail. Although for me I would not call it a resounding success either. I love the simplistic rules but find the book lacking in some essential concept. As a new GM, I would have like to see a more complete section on actual survival (tables for random encounters, events, etc). It somewhat feel unfinished imho as there are very little actual GM tools and I now have to find other informations outside the book from other zombie rpg. Of course this view is because I am not an experience GM. Overall my satisfaction level is 2D6 positive with 3D6 negative

Well the average roll should be 2 dice since that's literally a 'normal' difficulty roll. We normally go up to 3 dice because of prior weaknesses and / or wounds. I had a wound and was still suffering from my first day fear of zombies thing that seems automatic for a day one encounter. I also did that stupid Push it thing which added the 5th die because I wanted that terrible fight to end one way or the other. I already had the resist 1 and as far as I know you only gain resist 1.

It still doesn't change that fact that lowering dice also points to the system being broken because the dice are what's broken. Not rolling dice is safe, rolling them endangers you.

So let me get this straight, you come on here implying that this game is "a complete failure", people spend a few pages informing you what the rules state and how you could put them to use and make them work for you and instead of reading the three pages of experiences and explanations and make them work for you, you chose to defend the way you played, even though you thought it was "a complete failure"?

....okay....

I have to ask... What are you getting out of this?

I pose the same question to Timfads as well.

This whole thread does seem as if it was inspired by a clever trolling effort.

The idea that engaging zombies is damaging I like. In movies, people don't say "Ah, I'll just walk over and kill those zombies". They're worried about being overrun, grabbed, pushed, bitten, scratched. So sometimes, yes, it's better to NOT fight back and just try to run - like in the stories. Turning to fight is often the final bell.

I believe you might be confusing combat with conflict (I might be wrong too, I'm a noob at EOTW). The addition of positive/negative dice when attacking is intended to boost/diminish the damage you deal to and adversary. If you attack you roll a dexterity test (with added positive/negative depending on circumstances, surroundings, traumas and features). For every success you deal one damage to the adversary. Weapons add dice and +damage to negate this. Using some good ole commons sense and experience we have modified our weapons with our GM. For example we are military guys and we took away the negative die addition with the "automatic rifle", especially since we utilize AR's. Firing a 5.56mm (.223) round even for an extended period of time is not going to hurt you. We also add positives for combat experience, combat marksmanship instructors, and improved optics over iron sights on our rifles. That's just one example and we've had no problems. I will admit this RPG leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

While a physical test should not cause mental stress, could a GM rule that it causes a mental trauma? If it makes sense that in the scene the character didn't actually suffer any physical injury despite aqcuiring lots of stress from poor rolls,could the GM and player concede that the stress erasing moment results in a mental trauma instead of a physical one?

Also Can mental traumas cause negative dice in future physical tests or are they restricted to their category? If they can I don't see the above adjudication being unfair.

I prefer to keep Stress induced limited to the test type, and I prefer to keep the Trauma converted and he penalty induced in the same category as well. Reason being, if you're approaching the assembly of pools "correctly" and the assignment of test difficulty "correctly", there should be no need at all to shift stuff around.

IMO, the need to do this stuff arises from the GM misunderstanding what negative dice represent - which don't get me wrong, the book does a poor job of presenting and I question if the game designers even understood themselves...

Negative dice are not a representative of difficulty. They are most likely to induce Stress, not cancel out Successes. Therefore, they represent inherent danger of the action being attempted. Requiring two or more Successes is the true representative of an actions difficulty. Following these guidelines, you shouldn't have the problem of PCs accumulating too much Stress just from trying to do stuff, or accumulating Stress from trying to do stuff that it doesn't make sense for it to damage them in that way..

Negative dice are not a representative of difficulty. They are most likely to induce Stress, not cancel out Successes. Therefore, they represent inherent danger of the action being attempted. Requiring two or more Successes is the true representative of an actions difficulty. Following these guidelines, you shouldn't have the problem of PCs accumulating too much Stress just from trying to do stuff, or accumulating Stress from trying to do stuff that it doesn't make sense for it to damage them in that way..

This! My sentiments exactly.

I cant remember what show/movie it was, but the characters duct taped magazines to their forearms to help reduce the risk of being bitten.

World War Z, when they're in New Jersey near the beginning, just before getting airlifted out.

Here are my thoughts, take them as they are. I have not sat down to play this game as of yet, and have only just gotten my hands on a rulebook last night, so these ideas are unfounded on any practical experience with the system, but merely my interpretation of how things work based on the rules given and what I've read over the last few hours on these message boards.

1) I do not believe every test should include negative dice. Sure, there will be a lot of situations that will require the negative dice, as they are inherently dangerous and could lead to your character taking stress. There are many checks that can be made without the negative dice ever being touched, instead relying solely on your character's ability scores. After all, even if you're rolling 3 or more dice, if you fail to roll equal to or lower than the ability score you're testing, it still fails. To me, this seems to imply some level of "base difficulty" based on your character's talents.

Sure, you could throw in negative dice for every test you try to make. But to tell a good story, there should be some times when the dice come out without a chance of stress, just to see if the player succeeds at the task. For example:

PHYSICAL TEST

You and your party are out scavenging for supplies in an abandoned city. You're keeping quiet as you move from place to place, trying to avoid detection. Despite your best efforts, you run into a stray group of zombies, but they haven't noticed your group yet, and for whatever reason you need to get through them. Combat isn't the answer. Combat will get someone killed if you're not prepared for it. Plus, the noise will only draw more of the undead to you, creating an even bigger problem. You decide to risk sneaking around them using the sewers, and the group's muscle goes to move the manhole cover. Now, granted, you could add a negative die to the pool, justifying that he could hurt himself, pull a muscle, whatever, while he's moving this large metal disc. But what purpose does that serve to the story? The zombies are over doing their own thing, and there's nothing in the situation that dictates he can't take his time, remove the obstacle safely, and move on with his day. In this case, the roll is there simply to determine if he's successful in moving the manhole cover at all. Maybe he can't get the right leverage to pry it out of the ground. Maybe it's stuck in place due to poor maintenance. If he fails, that's that, he can't get it out. Nothing saying another PC can't try to do the same thing, and maybe with the musclehead's aid for an extra die this time.

MENTAL TEST

You're putting that super-awesome brain of yours to work today, helping out other survivors in the colony by fixing up some of the poorly-maintained equipment. Again, there's no immediate threat of danger in this scene, so the negative dice don't necessarily have to come into play. If you're fixing some devices that you're relatively familiar with, all it takes is a little time and an ability check. If you succeed, great, you've made a new friend. If you fail, maybe the item was simply beyond repair to begin with, or you don't have the right tools to make the necessary repairs. Is this device vital to the survival of the colony as a whole? That'll add some stress, as everyone's counting on you to make things right. Add a negative die to that roll, as you might work up a headache metaphorically (or literally) beating your head into a wall trying to come up with a solution.

SOCIAL TEST

You've always had a way with words, and today you'll put it to the test. The people of the colony have grown stagnant and morose in their post-apocalypse lifestyles, and you've taken it upon yourself to do something about it. You gather everyone together and prop yourself up on a soap box to deliver a rousing, inspirational speech that will help lift everyone's spirits. Chances are, unless you've got some serious personal issues with public speaking and being the center of attention, this will not bother you in the slightest. If you do have problems with public speaking, you probably wouldn't be making this speech to begin with, now would you? Roll that Charisma check, and if it succeeds, the people will start to see the silver lining and cheer up a bit, paving the way for a better tomorrow. If you fail, well, maybe another approach is needed. If you're personal investment in this speech is grounded a little more deeply, perhaps you overhead someone organizing a revolt, or someone's been joking about committing suicide, you could add a negative die. Any resulting stress could represent disappointment in yourself, in the people around you, or maybe some shame that you weren't able to help people the way you thought you could.

It's all about context. Negative dice shouldn't be added to the dice pool unless there is a compelling story reason for it to be there. Gloss over the simple stuff, and only add a chance for stress when it would really have a profound impact on the character.

2) Just because the dice pool has negatives in it, the GM can rule that there may be no stress involved. I would refer you to page 44 of the rulebook, the "Difficulty Without Stress" sidebar.

On occasion, a PC may attempt a task that is incredibly difficult, but wouldn't cause a dangerous amount of stress to perform. In these cases, instead of adding a large amount of negative dice to the pool, you can require the PC to generate a certain number of successes on their roll to succeed.

At first glance, this may seem like it's telling you not to add any negative dice to the pool, but look closely. It says "a large amount of negative dice," implying that adding a handful of negatives to the roll is still okay, and maybe even expected.

So, what does this mean?

The example I keep seeing come up is shooting a zombie in a dark room. You start with one positive die. You get another one for the close quarters, making it easier to aim. Maybe you've got a feature you can play off of like +Gun Nut. Now you're up to 3 positive dice. "But," the GM says, "The room is dark, and even though you're fairly confident you can make the shot, you're still under pressure, because you know if you fail to take down the Zed, it's going to try and eat you on its next action. Add 2 negative dice."

You're rolling 5 dice, 3 positive and 2 negative. Not great odds, but still manageable. Since taking that shot, in and of itself, may not add any physical stress to your character regardless of how the dice lay, the GM could arbitrate that you need 2 successes to drop the zombie. In this case, the negative dice have a chance of taking away your positives as usual, reducing your chances for success, but any remaining negatives wouldn't inflict any mechanical stress to your character.

3) Another idea I keep seeing thrown around is taking mental stress for physical actions. Even though the book does not come out and say that this is possible, it is implied that something like this could happen at the GM's discretion. I would refer you to page 18 of the rulebook.

Each positive feature on your character sheet that could help you perform the task adds a single positive die to the pool. Usually, this feature shares a category with the characteristic being used for the test. However, if the GM allows it, you may use applicable features from other categories as well.

Categories, by definition, refer to how your character sheet is broken down into Physical, Mental, and Social attributes, from your ability scores and features, to your stress and traumas. The fact that the book outright says that features can be used cross-category if the story context is appropriate, tells me that the same could apply to all facets of the character sheet.

Remember: it's just a character sheet. What it represents is YOU, in one context or anther. We, as humans, are not defined by how well we perform in one area over another. We are who we are, and an event that has a negative effect on one aspect of our being has an effect on the whole. The experience shapes your worldview, however slightly.

My solution?

For sake of argument, let's say a PC makes an attack roll against a zombie. He rolls the dice, maybe he succeeds, maybe he doesn't, but by the luck of the dice, he finds himself taking 3 stress on an empty track. Since the action itself is physical in nature, I don't think that should really be ignored. What I would allow, however, is the player to pitch a case for some mental stress. Let's say the player and the GM come up with a reasonable reason why this roll would have a negative affect on the PC's psyche. At least one stress still needs to be applied to the physical track, but one or both of the other stress points could be applied to the mental track. For instance, the attack failed, and now the PC is beginning to experience some doubt. About himself, the situation, and his chances of survival. It starts a mental chain reaction that could lead to a blind panic, and some poor life choices in the near future, and the fear of the situation makes his heart race wildly, letting the adrenaline flow.

It's not always about what numbers go where, folks. It's about telling a great story with your friends.

I feel like there was another point I wanted to illustrate, but I seem to have forgotten it with how long this ended up being. If it comes back to me, I'll make sure to post it up. I hope this was helpful to some of you.

Issues I'm having with the book so far: I've run a few games where the players play themselves, and apart from some problems with the rules themselves, I have some other items that experience has taught me need covering. (Since I'll be referencing back to my experiences with my own game, it's called "Surreality.")

I like the idea of having everyone vote for stats. One of the primary rules of Surreality is "Prove It." The first few games, I learned that everyone I know is a black belt, and everyone has an uncle they can call up ask ask to borrow an AK=47 and some grenades and he'll give them to them without question. (We're in Alaska, so that one's actually KIND of possible here, just not as common as it seems to be in game.) so now, if you're gonna claim to have a black belt, unless you have some kind of documentation with you, I wanna see you break a brick before I allow it.

Add to that the idea of "Ok, I need you to list some Traumas you've experienced, but only ones you'd be ok with coming up in the game." This is going to spawn some long, serious talks that'll probably take people out of the gaming mood when it's all over. I always presume this anyway, but in this game, I'd say to REALLY plan for your first session to be JUST character creation. The rules are easy enough, just that long talk about bad stuff from people's pasts is going to add hours.

The weapons table needs reworking as well. (Don't ever even both with a pistol when a machete will do the same damage and give you an additional die to hit.) Large, Improvised Melee, I can see actually trying to WIELD a chainsaw in combat would incur some negative dice, but a cricket bat? It's DESIGNED for swinging, and everyone who saw "Shaun of the Dead" and will argue the point. I presume Baseball Bat falls into the same category, since it'd be a common anti-zombie weapon that somehow didn't make the list. Same issue there. (There's also no category for UNimprovised melee weapons. What category would a mace go into?)

Another item that isn't covered when players play themselves: Children. The group I play with, one couple has twin toddlers and a newborn. I can see lots of roleplaying challenges in that, granted, however, some people just aren't going to want their kids to come to harm even in a game and will totally be put off based on that alone. And I wouldn't want to do that to those kids either. Best solution I can come up with is, right at the beginning, some Deus Ex Machina aliens show up to take the kids to the Galactic Day Care until the crisis is over, but that undermines the whole game. Maybe scavenging the wasteland for diapers and formula can get you an evening's short adventure, but keeping all those screaming kids under control is hard enough in real-life WITHOUT doing it because the zombies are massed outside and waiting for the slightest noise to start swarming. And a moment's mistake causing zombies to start eating the baby might be cool in the movies, but when it's THEIR baby being eaten, the game is going to come to a screeching halt.

Something else learned from Surreality: The GM's in-game character should disappear some time before the events started. I started this because the first two groups, as soon as the crisis started, were all "Let's go to the GM's house, he's going to have all the answers." Surreality takes place "A Couple Weeks From Now" to give time to sort that out.

I'm just coming to the end of the rules section, so I don't have anything to say about the rest of the book yet,

The weapons table needs reworking as well. (Don't ever even both with a pistol when a machete will do the same damage and give you an additional die to hit.) Large, Improvised Melee, I can see actually trying to WIELD a chainsaw in combat would incur some negative dice, but a cricket bat? It's DESIGNED for swinging, and everyone who saw "Shaun of the Dead" and will argue the point. I presume Baseball Bat falls into the same category, since it'd be a common anti-zombie weapon that somehow didn't make the list. Same issue there. (There's also no category for UNimprovised melee weapons. What category would a mace go into?)

The large improvised melee weapon category, I think, is mostly meant to cover items like shovels, brooms, and items like that. These items can dish out a lot of damage, but were not meant to be used to fight anything. Thus, their function in the game as weapons is awkward, and thus, are more open to the possibility of inflicting a negative effect on the wielder. In the situation I had, one of the players used a snow shovel against a zombie. It dealt the damage, but it was reasonable to assume that there would be possible negative effects of swinging a big stick with a large dull blade at the end of it.

As for your concern about baseball bats and cricket bats being included in this category, I can see how they both can fit in since neither was actually intended to hit anything harder than a closed fist (in size).

Personally, I saw the weapons chart as more of a guideline than a locked down written in stone set of rules. As the GM, you do have some flexibility in what you put into this game.

You could make any family members OPTIONAL NPC's for the players in order to avoid grief. That is to say, when you begin, they simply don't know where their kids are. If they want to be "realistic" and make their focus finding and getting their kids, then having their baby eaten by a zombie without the chance to save it is adversarial. This is the player's story. Let them decide how personal it is.

FWIW simply having family and friends that are close to the players end up "off screen" can prevent the first chargen session from becoming harsh for those unaccustomed to substantiating their claims. Best to play the game everyone wants to play rather than force players to confront their worst fears about people they would be willing to die to protect. If they WANT them in the story, let them decide that conscientiously.

My experience has been that most players WILL opt to have their family and friends suffer the end times with them, creating a special kind of tension that The End of the World series seems best at exploiting. It's personal, and thus the stakes really matter.

Here are my thoughts, take them as they are. ... I hope this was helpful to some of you.

Good post. Well thought out and you made some good points. Thanks.

You could make any family members OPTIONAL NPC's for the players in order to avoid grief. That is to say, when you begin, they simply don't know where their kids are.

Or maybe they know the kids went on vacation with grandparents.

You could make any family members OPTIONAL NPC's for the players in order to avoid grief. That is to say, when you begin, they simply don't know where their kids are. If they want to be "realistic" and make their focus finding and getting their kids, then having their baby eaten by a zombie without the chance to save it is adversarial. This is the player's story. Let them decide how personal it is.

FWIW simply having family and friends that are close to the players end up "off screen" can prevent the first chargen session from becoming harsh for those unaccustomed to substantiating their claims. Best to play the game everyone wants to play rather than force players to confront their worst fears about people they would be willing to die to protect. If they WANT them in the story, let them decide that conscientiously.

My experience has been that most players WILL opt to have their family and friends suffer the end times with them, creating a special kind of tension that The End of the World series seems best at exploiting. It's personal, and thus the stakes really matter.

I actually had this happen in the one scenario that ran. One of the players happen to live very near the local hospital which I set up as ground zero for the zombie outbreak. Given the nature of the scenario I played (a "siege" situation where the players had to escape), the player was isolated from his family. I never had any intention of putting them in harm's way (planning a reunion at the extraction point, and when that plan was in jeopardy, allowing him to get a text message that let him know that they had in fact escaped and were in harm's way), but it helped to add a bit more tension to the game.

Just received the rulebooks, read through once and checking the forums for recommended house rules.

One issue I have from reading this thread concerns the 'multiple successes-difficulty' thing.

Forgive me if Im wrong about this..( read the book once)

When a character takes a test they start with one die. If there are no special positive or negative implications they keep one die. Therefore a more difficult test, requiring 2 or more successes, is impossible - regardless of their skill level. Unless they have a special feature or something that brings another die in they cant succeed?

I have Dexterity 5, I am shooting at a Zed walking across the street down the block a ways. Im not a marksman but I can hold and aim a rifle. The GM decides this is a difficult shot due to range... increasing difficulty instead of adding a negative dice because... as I have been reading above... there is no threat in this action, certainly no physical one implied by the distance to the target. GM says I need two successes... how am I going to get them without some sort of additional help? Without out some outside influence its impossible with the base 1 die?

Secondly... why is the notion of Stress affecting categories other than the one used in a test such a 'no no'?

It seems like a really good way to manage any type of negative feedback from any occurrence.

Guy has to shoot his friend who just broke his leg and cant keep up as the group runs from zombies. Suffer Social Stress as he shuts down his own sense of humanity.

Guy suffers Stress from seeing something horrifying and applies it as physical, becomes sick to his stomach, gets the shakes etc.

Guy gets in a nasty argument with his significant other, suffers stress and applies it to Mental as he is distracted by the fight and cant get his mind off it.

Poor examples perhaps, but you get the idea. There are any number of situations where actions involving one category could impact another. Does this break the game somehow? Seems like a harmless and possibly useful rule change.

RE: 1 skill die vs 2 difficulty test.

You can ALWAYS "push yourself". So you can absolutely always have 2 die. Also, it's important to keep in mind that 2 successes is a very significant step up in difficulty, so don't throw them around too liberally. 3 successes required would be a truly epic task. But also they can usually get assistance from a teammate, which adds a die, or improvise/craft some sort of aid/gear. Basically it's really really really easy to get more than 1 die, this will not be a problem.

RE: shuffling Stress.

For me it was a philosophical thing. Why am I using this ruleset at all if it is fundamentally broken? If the most basic thing about it makes it unplayable? Also, if you manage negative dice with some thought (via increased difficulty) it's simply not necessary.

Wow, really disappointing. TEotW is really a pretty cool system and the genre stuff is great to have on hand for any number of games. The books look good too. Sad the forum here is so dead.

They just announced another book today!

As for the question why these fora seem dead, and whether End Of The World is a complete fail, My guess is such:

The game system is limited. It is not intended for (though it can be adapted to) long term campaigns. The people I speak with (type with, on fora such as these) tend to lose interest because of these limits. There is no support in additional source books (such as an extensive equipment guide, or a monster manual of sorts) besides the core books. Besides custom material, there are no new scenarios for the existing books. Yet there could have been many. For the Wrath of the Gods book, for example, where is the Egyptian pantheon? The entire game line seems to be made, just so people have something to do between two regular campaigns played with further developed game systems. This line is ideal to play a one-nighter when half the players of a regular game don't show up.

Of course, the disinterest might be fueled by people's expectations. If they bought into this End Of The World line expecting something with the depth and sheer volume of material the likes of Pathfinder, they get disappointed. Understandably, but also fairly? I did my homework, and decided to buy the books regardless. I knew beforehand this wasn't going to be more than an oddity, a diversion, and because I have set my expectations to that level, I wasn't disappointed. I had quite the fun with it already, to be honest.

As for the fora and why they seem dead. A couple of posts appear every few days or so. Not dead, but very slow. Your guess is as good as mine, which is along the lines of expectations and interest. Look at the Star Wars fora. That game is far less of a niche game, with a far larger volume of books, with many more rules to discuss. The End Of The World line limits itself to just our world buring, and after, a certain apocalypse. Star Wars encompasses an entire galaxy, with billions of stars around which the opportunity for adventure is found on trillions of planets, and an even greater amount of moons, asteroids, nebulae and even just cold, deep space. The Star Wars fora are open to questions such as how the gravity of the Moons of Iego affects combat in an air speeder. End Of The World only knows one gravity; Earth's. Star Wars might see questions about one of the many playable species. End Of The World (at its base) only has one; us humans. The limited scope of the End Of The World line seems, to me, also limit the activity on its fora.